Hacker News Reader

I am not a lawyer, but I suspect the key phrase is "specifically designed to operate primarily in an environment..." That is, a phone designed to be used underwater would be exempt, but a phone that can get wet occasionally - or even be immersed - is not specifically designed to operate underwater.

Hopefully the regulating body would take a dim view of "one weird trick" type attempts at circumventing the intent of the rule.

> Hopefully the regulating body would take a dim view of "one weird trick" type attempts at circumventing the intent of the rule.

Generally the law always does, but nerds love to think that they can find bounds checking violations in the law. In reality some administrative law judge or similar will not actually be impressed.

Sometimes it works.

Recently I read that in France (where I live) there is this rule that all online sellers selling to customers must pay VAT even if abroad.

Someone pulled a trick along the lines of: taking orders from customers then ordering stuff on behalf of the customer, then claim "we don't sell stuff, we just order things on behalf of the customer", and then the other seller is not ordered from by the customer so by the book they are also not concerned by VAT (so in the end no VAT is paid)

And it seems it was confirmed being legal...

Either they are the customer and must pay it, or if they are legally not, they can be asked for the list of customers so that they can all be fined, which will lead to customers suing them.

Usually that's how these "lifehacks" around regulations wind up playing out.

The regulators move slowly so it looks like it works for awhile, but someone winds up going bankrupt or to jail eventually.

Where did you read that? In my experience, when ordering from outside the EU (I only have experience with the US, but I don't think it matters) I'm usually on the hook for import duties and VAT when I receive the package. I have to pay those separately, and not to the retailer but to the delivery company.

The point is that, it's technically the end customer who pays the VAT. The seller collects it, on behalf of the state.

See my answer to your sibling

Do you have some links ? For me you can't sell without VAT if the person doesn't have a VAT number. In your exemple they don't seel a good but a service to order the good, VAT still need to be paid.

I read that in le monde (in French, paywalled I think)

https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2023/07/11/des-...

They call the intermediate "dropshippers" (even in the French text)

I don't have a subscription to Le Monde, so can't read the whole article.

IANAL, but the linked EU directive doesn't seem to say that the seller has to charge VAT at the moment of sale, only that VAT is due, even in the case of an intermediary.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...

I've just done a quick check on the site of B&H, an US-based reputable electronics store. If you try to send something somewhat expensive to France, they have the option of handling import duties and taxes or to handle it yourself.

Interesting, here in Poland when customs decided to tax my package i was ordered to also pay VAT on the product

In defence of us nerds, loopholes are very much a real thing. And I bet lawyers from manufacturers are also looking for a breach through this law, and they may have lobbyists try to insert some. I don't think it is unreasonable for us to try to look for one.

And even if the judge ultimately decides against the manufacturer, it will take willingness to enforce the regulation for that to happen, during which the manufacturer can take cover under the "loophole".

Unfortunately devs already one-weird-tricked the GDPR with the cookie banner malicious compliance. The relevant courts are reacting, but not fast enough and not across the board.

Most cookie banners are not compliant, since they offer "accept all" and "more options/customize".

Like you said the courts are just not fast enough

i find the key phrase to be portable battery. what makes one battery portable and another not? electric cars’ batteries are portable aren’t they? just because a battery is light that doesn’t mean it’s portable. the design criteria of many batteries are intentionally permanent, soldered and otherwise permanently affixed, requiring electronic support from the device itself (ie not integrated into the battery) for charge control. are these portable?

That's defined in Article 3:

"portable battery’ means a battery that is sealed, weighs 5 kg or less, is not designed specifically for industrial use and is neither an electric vehicle battery, an LMT battery, nor an SLI battery;"

What's an LMT or SLI battery? Well:

"light means of transport battery’ or ‘LMT battery’ means a battery that is sealed, weighs 25 kg or less and is specifically designed to provide electric power for the traction of wheeled vehicles that can be powered by an electric motor alone or by a combination of motor and human power, including type-approved vehicles of category L within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council1, and that is not an electric vehicle battery;"

and

"‘starting, lighting and ignition battery’ or ‘SLI battery’ means a battery that is specifically designed to supply electric power for starting, lighting, or ignition and that can also be used for auxiliary or backup purposes in vehicles, other means of transport or machinery;"

> > The obligations laid down in paragraph 1 shall not apply where continuity of power supply is necessary and a permanent connection between the product and the respective portable battery is required to ensure the safety of the user and the appliance or, for products that collect and supply data as their main function, for data integrity reasons.

> Another potential loophole?

Safety of user is not a concern for cell phone. Because it is possible to make a cell phone where a battery can be swapped a "safety of the appliance" would not apply.

The "collect and supply data as their main function" is intended as a carve out for devices like credit card readers, some of which have anti-tamper circuits will wipe critical data from the device if opened. These work by storing the data in SRAM, and using a battery backup for it (so that a power outage or unplugging it won't wipe it). They have contacts that detect if the case is opened, and that trigger wiping the data.

This was especially important for older mag-stripe readers where one could hypothetically install a skimmer inside the main reader if it continued to work after opening it. Hence, while they can often be disassembled with just commercially available tools, a normal user replacing the battery is not possible, as the factory needs to reprogram it afterwards, and they will insist on inspecting the unit for tampering before they do so. Requiring reprogramming by the manufacturer after battery replacement does not qualify as a replaceable battery under this regulation, so these devices need a carveout.

>What if Apple starts to say that we can rinse off our iPhones any time they get dirty? They already show advertisements in which iPhones get dunked in water.

Semi-related: If they somehow use that loophole then they should be obliged to honour warranty claims for water damage.

I'll admit that I don't know about iPhones, but my Pixel 6 was described as being waterproof but experienced water damage after being dropped in a swimming pool (1 metre depth) for a few seconds and Google refused to repair it under warranty.

It's Apple. Expect that. Their USB-C already has been designed to be DIFFERENT than others even thoigh defeating the EU directive intention. Unless EU rewrite a more stringent USB-C requirement, we will get that new USB-C feature "for first time in computing" by Apple for iphone 15 ultra.

> It's Apple. Expect that. Their USB-C already has been designed to be DIFFERENT than others even thoigh defeating the EU directive intention. Unless EU rewrite a more stringent USB-C requirement, we will get that new USB-C feature "for first time in computing" by Apple for iphone 15 ultra.

How do you know that? There is no iPhone from Apple with an USB-C port. You are just speculating based on some rumors.

On some rumors and previous Apple behavior.

Current and previous Apple behavior with USB-C is regular USB-C, with USB-PD for changing, on Macbooks and iPads. Why should iPhone be any different?

Also being different would make it would be incompatible with current Macbook and iPad owner's chargers.

You mean even though Apple already ships iPads with USB C that aren’t “different”? Do you think Apple is going to turn around and make the iPhone USB C port “different” and incompatible with their shipping iPads?

There was a guy in Australia who bought the iPhone XS after Phil Schiller stood on stage at the announcement and said "you can drop it in a pool and be fine". After he accidentally dropped it in a pool and it broke, Apple refused warranty repair. He filed a claim with the New South Wales Fair Trading bureau and they convinced Apple to reimburse him...

Yeah.

My (<2 yr old) series 6 watch now has water damage to the face and digitizer, after doing a swimming workout. It's nominally 50m water resistant, and I went a max of 1.5m. It's had a handful of water experiences, but nothing deeper than a pool and no high speed/pressure type stuff.

It's effectively dead.

Apple wants 359 eur to repair it. The new cost, with charger (39eur) and the braided sport band (100eur) ((which was nice, but stretched and became useless) was 509 eur. So there's effectively a 10 eur difference between the original sale price and the repair price.

There are refurb series 6 gps + cell on the amazon.de for 299 eur, and those include a strap and charger, as well as the cell functionality that I didn't have.

This is within the EU (and Ireland) 2 year limit on defective products, and I originally bought this from Apple directly. So I might have a claim there. On the other hand, I don't want them deleting my apple account in retaliation.

>I don't want them deleting my apple account in retaliation.

This is by far the biggest crime being committed here.

That they have you by the balls for access to essential services as well as your data needed to make the hardware purchase complete.

If they don't want to do the account hosting for some of their customers (because they don't like them for some reason) then they should offer an option to self host alongside a heavily discounted device which is compatible with self hosting. If you've already bought a device and they remove access to services they should be legally obligated to refund the difference. Otherwise they should make the services an explicit part of the purchase contract and be legally obliged to continue providing them.

Part of the apple tax is precisely to cover costs of maintaining the whole integrated ecosystem.

Nobody should feel the need to keep silent over a hardware issue because they may be cut off from essential software and services required to make good use of the hardware.

This is one of the core reasons for why I refuse to buy devices which are forcibly integrated into an ecosystem like this. But anyone who so chooses should not be fucked over by their choice at the whim of a large company.

There’s also the complication of being in the EU with a US Apple account, because we moved here after the account was set up.

i'm also in the EU with my main apple id being US based. have you had any other major issues unique to our scenario? aside from having to create a new german account for country-specific apps it's been pretty smooth sailing for me.

Change your payment method to one based in the EU and it becomes an EU Apple account.

I believe they're right, and you're wrong.

Quoted depths are usually for Static Pressure, when the item is not moving against the water.

My Citizen wrist watch is marked as WR 100, i.e. 100m Static Pressure. That can be used for swimming, and I regularly do so. It is now around 25 years old.

A watch marked as water resistant to 50m is only really splash proof, or can be rinsed under a running tap. So it is safe to keep on while washing your hands.

One of my dive computers, intended to be used to around 40m, happens to be marked on the back as water resistant to 80m - but the casing is generally much more robust than in a watch.

I’ve had several 50m water resist watches as a kid, and I always cracked the face, broke the band, or lost them. They never died from water, and I was in water a lot more back then.

50m is approx 5 atm of pressure — essentially waterproof unless you’re doing serious diving.

You may wish to consult the following table for how the manufacturers currently expect you to interpret those markings:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Resistant_mark#Water_res...

Yeah, so swimming in a pool and doing a swim workout, using the fitness app, should be fine.

With iPhone you can’t claim warranty for water damage, but if you have apple care+ you can just say “oops I broke it, here’s $100 for a new one”

> Any natural or legal person that places on the market products incorporating portable batteries shall ensure that those batteries are readily removable and replaceable by the end-user at any time during the lifetime of the product. That obligation shall only apply to entire batteries and not to individual cells or other parts included in such batteries.

So would this apply to something like the Nintendo Switch, and/or Steam Deck?

It seems to be the case.

Interesting. The wording makes it sound like it would apply to controllers as well. So for a system like the Switch, they'd have to make sure that not only the battery of the console is replaceable, but also those of both Joy-Cons.

I'll be interested to know if it applies to things like AirPods, those would be more challenging to redesign with replaceable batteries (though obviously not impossible).

Shouldn't that be "in vivo diagnostic medical devices"?

The document it refers to is about "in vitro diagnostic devices" and this includes things like those pregnancy tests with an LCD readout. 2017/746 is about point of care diagnostic devices generally.

I think in vivo devices would fall under 2017/745 medical devices.